Comments

Voice-of-reality
6:24pm Mon 6 Jan 14

Surely 'the truly poor' do not have childcosts - given that they do not work and are at home.... and, therefore, have no excuse not to look after their own chidlren who are already paid for by taxpayers. Or must the taxpayer do everything for the workshy?

Surely 'the truly poor' do not have childcosts - given that they do not work and are at home.... and, therefore, have no excuse not to look after their own chidlren who are already paid for by taxpayers. Or must the taxpayer do everything for the workshy?Voice-of-reality

Surely 'the truly poor' do not have childcosts - given that they do not work and are at home.... and, therefore, have no excuse not to look after their own chidlren who are already paid for by taxpayers. Or must the taxpayer do everything for the workshy?

Score: 12

Jonn
6:43pm Mon 6 Jan 14

Voice-of-reality wrote…

Surely 'the truly poor' do not have childcosts - given that they do not work and are at home.... and, therefore, have no excuse not to look after their own chidlren who are already paid for by taxpayers. Or must the taxpayer do everything for the workshy?

[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote:
Surely 'the truly poor' do not have childcosts - given that they do not work and are at home.... and, therefore, have no excuse not to look after their own chidlren who are already paid for by taxpayers. Or must the taxpayer do everything for the workshy?[/p][/quote]Read the article again. 'In WORK' poverty. 'Low income WORKING families'.Jonn

Voice-of-reality wrote…

Surely 'the truly poor' do not have childcosts - given that they do not work and are at home.... and, therefore, have no excuse not to look after their own chidlren who are already paid for by taxpayers. Or must the taxpayer do everything for the workshy?

my father in law recently purchased a stunning cream Porsche Cayman only from working part time off a home computer. pop over to this website Best96.comDianneCrook00

my father in law recently purchased a stunning cream Porsche Cayman only from working part time off a home computer. pop over to this website Best96.com

Score: -1

Voice-of-reality
7:18pm Mon 6 Jan 14

Jonn,
I was expanding the debate - beyond the article - as you often do. Accordingly, I would remove child benefit from those who do not work - and give more to those who do work as those who are willing to 'help themselves' should be rewarded whilst those who choose not to support themselves should receive nothing.

Jonn,
I was expanding the debate - beyond the article - as you often do. Accordingly, I would remove child benefit from those who do not work - and give more to those who do work as those who are willing to 'help themselves' should be rewarded whilst those who choose not to support themselves should receive nothing.Voice-of-reality

Jonn,
I was expanding the debate - beyond the article - as you often do. Accordingly, I would remove child benefit from those who do not work - and give more to those who do work as those who are willing to 'help themselves' should be rewarded whilst those who choose not to support themselves should receive nothing.

Score: 8

Jonn
7:38pm Mon 6 Jan 14

Voice-of-reality wrote…

Jonn,
I was expanding the debate - beyond the article - as you often do. Accordingly, I would remove child benefit from those who do not work - and give more to those who do work as those who are willing to 'help themselves' should be rewarded whilst those who choose not to support themselves should receive nothing.

Really? It reads like you were benefit bashing just for the heck of it.
I'm relieved you put me straight though.
I see you agree with Mr Milburn then.

[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote:
Jonn,
I was expanding the debate - beyond the article - as you often do. Accordingly, I would remove child benefit from those who do not work - and give more to those who do work as those who are willing to 'help themselves' should be rewarded whilst those who choose not to support themselves should receive nothing.[/p][/quote]Really? It reads like you were benefit bashing just for the heck of it.
I'm relieved you put me straight though.
I see you agree with Mr Milburn then.Jonn

Voice-of-reality wrote…

Jonn,
I was expanding the debate - beyond the article - as you often do. Accordingly, I would remove child benefit from those who do not work - and give more to those who do work as those who are willing to 'help themselves' should be rewarded whilst those who choose not to support themselves should receive nothing.

Really? It reads like you were benefit bashing just for the heck of it.
I'm relieved you put me straight though.
I see you agree with Mr Milburn then.

Score: -7

smokin
9:57pm Mon 6 Jan 14

if they stopped giving away money to other countries there would be enough money to keep everyone out of poverty in england

if they stopped giving away money to other countries there would be enough money to keep everyone out of poverty in englandsmokin

if they stopped giving away money to other countries there would be enough money to keep everyone out of poverty in england

Score: 2

darloboss
10:44pm Mon 6 Jan 14

What a bunch of toss pots this co- alition is Iam alright jack £u(k you

What a bunch of toss pots this co- alition is Iam alright jack £u(k youdarloboss

What a bunch of toss pots this co- alition is Iam alright jack £u(k you

Score: -8

BMD
4:41am Tue 7 Jan 14

The only people in the North-East earning £150,000 p.a. are Council Chief Executives or Labour Councillors.

The only people in the North-East earning £150,000 p.a. are Council Chief Executives or Labour Councillors.BMD

The only people in the North-East earning £150,000 p.a. are Council Chief Executives or Labour Councillors.

Score: 6

miketually
9:22am Tue 7 Jan 14

smokin wrote…

if they stopped giving away money to other countries there would be enough money to keep everyone out of poverty in england

If you think this, you don't really know how much we give to other countries compared to overall welfare spending.

[quote][p][bold]smokin[/bold] wrote:
if they stopped giving away money to other countries there would be enough money to keep everyone out of poverty in england[/p][/quote]If you think this, you don't really know how much we give to other countries compared to overall welfare spending.miketually

smokin wrote…

if they stopped giving away money to other countries there would be enough money to keep everyone out of poverty in england

If you think this, you don't really know how much we give to other countries compared to overall welfare spending.

Score: 1

David Lacey
10:23am Tue 7 Jan 14

As there is NO real poverty in this country, the argument is entirely specious. And helping people who earn the average wage (or above) means they are generating tax income on this income.
.
Remember the definition of poverty frequently used is:
.
"Families who ‘lack resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies to which they belong’".
.
In other words, if families can’t afford takeaways, go on foreign holidays, wear designer trainers and have satellite TV like their better-off neighbours then they’re ‘living in poverty’.
.
Try telling that to a starving child in Africa, or an orphan fleeing war-torn Syria with just the rags on their back.

As there is NO real poverty in this country, the argument is entirely specious. And helping people who earn the average wage (or above) means they are generating tax income on this income.
.
Remember the definition of poverty frequently used is:
.
"Families who ‘lack resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies to which they belong’".
.
In other words, if families can’t afford takeaways, go on foreign holidays, wear designer trainers and have satellite TV like their better-off neighbours then they’re ‘living in poverty’.
.
Try telling that to a starving child in Africa, or an orphan fleeing war-torn Syria with just the rags on their back.David Lacey

As there is NO real poverty in this country, the argument is entirely specious. And helping people who earn the average wage (or above) means they are generating tax income on this income.
.
Remember the definition of poverty frequently used is:
.
"Families who ‘lack resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies to which they belong’".
.
In other words, if families can’t afford takeaways, go on foreign holidays, wear designer trainers and have satellite TV like their better-off neighbours then they’re ‘living in poverty’.
.
Try telling that to a starving child in Africa, or an orphan fleeing war-torn Syria with just the rags on their back.

Score: 5

sineater
12:01pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Back again with the same comment David,,as I said before would you have been happier if Labour let the banks go bankrupt and the country have "real "poverty like the thirties?

Back again with the same comment David,,as I said before would you have been happier if Labour let the banks go bankrupt and the country have "real "poverty like the thirties?sineater

Back again with the same comment David,,as I said before would you have been happier if Labour let the banks go bankrupt and the country have "real "poverty like the thirties?

Score: -1

Taxpaying Homeowner
1:01pm Tue 7 Jan 14

sineater wrote…

Back again with the same comment David,,as I said before would you have been happier if Labour let the banks go bankrupt and the country have "real "poverty like the thirties?

Whats your point?? Neither the story or David mentions the banks....

The story wraps itself in knots for no purpose other than make out tax relief as a percentage to be unfair to the lowest paid.

Alan Milburn does have a point that the threshold being set at £150k per working person means a household could get relief if they earn upto £300k between them. Thats seems quite high at first glance.

[quote][p][bold]sineater[/bold] wrote:
Back again with the same comment David,,as I said before would you have been happier if Labour let the banks go bankrupt and the country have "real "poverty like the thirties?[/p][/quote]Whats your point?? Neither the story or David mentions the banks....
The story wraps itself in knots for no purpose other than make out tax relief as a percentage to be unfair to the lowest paid.
Alan Milburn does have a point that the threshold being set at £150k per working person means a household could get relief if they earn upto £300k between them. Thats seems quite high at first glance.Taxpaying Homeowner

sineater wrote…

Back again with the same comment David,,as I said before would you have been happier if Labour let the banks go bankrupt and the country have "real "poverty like the thirties?

Whats your point?? Neither the story or David mentions the banks....

The story wraps itself in knots for no purpose other than make out tax relief as a percentage to be unfair to the lowest paid.

Alan Milburn does have a point that the threshold being set at £150k per working person means a household could get relief if they earn upto £300k between them. Thats seems quite high at first glance.

Score: -1

sineater
3:30pm Tue 7 Jan 14

THO, My point was in reply to Davids coverall standard chant that there is no poverty,,and would he have liked the economy to have collapsed completely so that poverty was the same level as when the banks crashed in '29. David mentions foreign holidays ,and sattelite t.v.,when people are struggling to pay their rent,and power bills,he's as nearly out of touch as cabinet members of the government.

THO, My point was in reply to Davids coverall standard chant that there is no poverty,,and would he have liked the economy to have collapsed completely so that poverty was the same level as when the banks crashed in '29. David mentions foreign holidays ,and sattelite t.v.,when people are struggling to pay their rent,and power bills,he's as nearly out of touch as cabinet members of the government.sineater

THO, My point was in reply to Davids coverall standard chant that there is no poverty,,and would he have liked the economy to have collapsed completely so that poverty was the same level as when the banks crashed in '29. David mentions foreign holidays ,and sattelite t.v.,when people are struggling to pay their rent,and power bills,he's as nearly out of touch as cabinet members of the government.

Score: -1

Jonn
7:52pm Tue 7 Jan 14

David Lacey wrote…

As there is NO real poverty in this country, the argument is entirely specious. And helping people who earn the average wage (or above) means they are generating tax income on this income.
.
Remember the definition of poverty frequently used is:
.
"Families who ‘lack resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies to which they belong’".
.
In other words, if families can’t afford takeaways, go on foreign holidays, wear designer trainers and have satellite TV like their better-off neighbours then they’re ‘living in poverty’.
.
Try telling that to a starving child in Africa, or an orphan fleeing war-torn Syria with just the rags on their back.

Maybe Africa and Syria should introduce a welfare state to bring the poorest out of poverty instead of a few wealthy controlling it's huge natural resources and keeping all the money.

[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote:
As there is NO real poverty in this country, the argument is entirely specious. And helping people who earn the average wage (or above) means they are generating tax income on this income.
.
Remember the definition of poverty frequently used is:
.
"Families who ‘lack resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies to which they belong’".
.
In other words, if families can’t afford takeaways, go on foreign holidays, wear designer trainers and have satellite TV like their better-off neighbours then they’re ‘living in poverty’.
.
Try telling that to a starving child in Africa, or an orphan fleeing war-torn Syria with just the rags on their back.[/p][/quote]Maybe Africa and Syria should introduce a welfare state to bring the poorest out of poverty instead of a few wealthy controlling it's huge natural resources and keeping all the money.Jonn

David Lacey wrote…

As there is NO real poverty in this country, the argument is entirely specious. And helping people who earn the average wage (or above) means they are generating tax income on this income.
.
Remember the definition of poverty frequently used is:
.
"Families who ‘lack resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies to which they belong’".
.
In other words, if families can’t afford takeaways, go on foreign holidays, wear designer trainers and have satellite TV like their better-off neighbours then they’re ‘living in poverty’.
.
Try telling that to a starving child in Africa, or an orphan fleeing war-torn Syria with just the rags on their back.

Maybe Africa and Syria should introduce a welfare state to bring the poorest out of poverty instead of a few wealthy controlling it's huge natural resources and keeping all the money.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here